Network Working Group D. Farinacci
Internet-Draft lispers.net
Intended status: Experimental P. Pillay-Esnault
Expires: November 29, 2018 Huawei Technologies
May 28, 2018
LISP Predictive RLOCs
draft-ietf-lisp-predictive-rlocs-02
Abstract
This specification describes a method to achieve near-zero packet
loss when an EID is roaming quickly across RLOCs.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 29, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
Farinacci & Pillay-EsnauExpires November 29, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LISP Predictive RLOCs May 2018
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Design Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. RLE Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Packet Delivery Optimizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Trading Off Replication Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Directional Paths with Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Multiple Address-Family Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Scaling Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-predictive-rlocs-02 . . . . . 13
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-predictive-rlocs-01 . . . . . 13
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-predictive-rlocs-00 . . . . . 14
B.4. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-predictive-rlocs-02 . . . 14
B.5. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-predictive-rlocs-01 . . . 14
B.6. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-predictive-rlocs-00 . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
The LISP architecture [RFC6830] specifies two namespaces, End-Point
IDs (EIDs) and Routing Locators (RLOCs). An EID identifies a node in
the network and the RLOC indicates the EID's topological location.
When an node roams in the network, its EID remains fixed and
unchanged but the RLOCs associated with it change to reflect its new
topological attachment point. This specification will focus EIDs and
RLOCs residing in separate nodes. An EID is assigned to a host node
that roams while the RLOCs are assigned to network nodes that stay
stationary and are part of the network topology. For example, a set
of devices on an aircraft are assigned EIDs, and base stations on the
ground attached to the Internet infrastructure are configured as LISP
xTRs where their RLOCs are used for the bindings of the EIDs on the
aircraft up in the air.
Farinacci & Pillay-EsnauExpires November 29, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LISP Predictive RLOCs May 2018
The scope of this specification will not emphasize general physical
roaming as an aircraft would do in the sky but in a direction that is
more predictable such as a train traveling on a track or vehicle that
travels along a road.
2. Definition of Terms
Roaming-EID - is a network node that moves from one topological
location in the network to another. The network node uses the
same EID when it is roaming. That is, the EID address does not
change for reasons of mobility. A roaming-EID can also be a
roaming EID-prefix where a set of EIDs covered by the prefix are
all roaming and fate-sharing the same set of RLOCs at the same
time.
Predictive RLOCs - is a set of ordered RLOCs in a list each assigned
to LISP xTRs where the next RLOC in the list has high probability
it will be the next LISP xTR in a physical path going in a single
predictable direction.
Road-Side-Units (RSUs) - is a network node that acts as a router,
more specifically as a LISP xTR. The xTR automatically discovers
roaming-EIDs that come into network connectivity range and relays
packets to and from the roaming-EID. RSUs are typically deployed
along a directional path like a train track or road and are in
connectivity range of devices that travel along the directional
path.
3. Overview
The goal of this specification is to describe a make-before-break
EID-mobility mechanism that offers near-zero packet loss. Offering
minimal packet loss, not only allows transport layers to operate more
efficiently, but because an EID does not change while moving,
transport layer session continuity is maintained. To achieve these
requirements, a mechanism that reacts to the mobility event is
necessary but not sufficient. So the question is not that there
isn't a reaction but when it happens. By using some predictive
algorithms, we can guess with high probability where the EID will
roam to next. We can achieve this to a point where packet data will
be at the new location when the EID arrives.
First we should examine both the send and receive directions with
respect to the roaming-EID. Refer to Figure 1 for discussion. We
show a network node with a fixed EID address assigned to a roaming-
EID moving along a train track. And there are LISP xTRs deployed as
Road-Side-Units to support the connectivity between the roaming-EID
and the infrastructure or to another roaming-EID.
Farinacci & Pillay-EsnauExpires November 29, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LISP Predictive RLOCs May 2018
Roaming-EID ---->
====//====//====//====//====//====//====//====//===//====//====//====
// // // // // // // // // // //
====//====//====//====//====//====//====//====//===//====//====//====
xTR xTR xTR xTR xTR xTR
A B C D E F
Figure 1: Directional Mobility
For the send direction from roaming-EID to any destination can be
accomplish as a local decision. As long as the roaming-EID is in
signal range to any xTR along the path, it can use it to forward
packets. The LISP xTR, acting as an ITR, can forward packets to
destinations in non-LISP sites as well as to stationary and roaming
EIDs in LISP sites. This is accomplished by using the LISP overlay
via dynamic packet encapsulation. When the roaming-EID sends
packets, the LISP xTR must discover the EID and MAY register the EID
with a set of RLOCs to the mapping system
[I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility]. The discovery process is important
because the LISP xTR, acting as an ETR for decapsulating packets that
arrive, needs to know what local ports or radios to send packets to
the roaming-EID.
Much of the focus of this design is on the packet direction to the
roaming-EID. And how remote LISP ITRs find the current location
(RLOCs) quickly when the roaming-EID is moving at high speed. This
specification solves the fast roaming with the introduction of the
Predictive-RLOCs algorithm.
Since a safe assumption is that the roaming-EID is going in one
direction and cannot deviate from it allows us to know a priori the
next set of RLOCs the roaming-EID will pass by. Referring to
Figure 1, if the roaming-EID is in range near xTR-A, then as it
moves, it will at some point pass by xTR-B and xTR-C, and so on. As
the roaming-EID moves, one could time when the EID is mapped to RLOC
A, and when it should change to RLOC B and so on. However, the speed
of movement of the roaming-EID won't be constant and the variables
involved in consistent timing cannot be relied on. Furthermore,
timing the move is not a make-before-break algorithm, meaning the
reaction of the binding happens at the time the roaming-EID is
discovered by an xTR. One cannot achieve fast hand-offs when message
signaling will be required to inform remote ITRs of the new binding.
The Predictive RLOCs algorithm allows a set of RLOCs, in an ordered
list, to be provided to remote ITRs so they have the information
Farinacci & Pillay-EsnauExpires November 29, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LISP Predictive RLOCs May 2018
available and local for when they need to use it. Therefore, no
control-plane message signaling occurs when the roaming-EID is
discovered by LISP xTRs.
4. Design Details
Predictive RLOCs accommodates for encapsulated packets to be
delivered to Road-Side-Unit LISP xTRs regardless where the roaming-
EID is currently positioned.
Referring to Figure 1, the following sequence is performed:
1. The Predictive RLOCs are registered to the mapping system as a
LCAF encoded Replication List Entry (RLE) Type [RFC8060]. The
registration can happen by one or more RSUs or by a third-party.
When registered by an RSU, and when no coordination is desired,
they each register their own RLOC with merge-semantics so the
list can be created and maintained in the LISP Map-Server. When
registered by a third-party, the complete list of RLOCs can be
included in the RLE.
2. There can be multiple RLEs present each as different RLOC-
records so a remote ITR can select one RLOC-record versus the
other based in priority and weight policy [RFC6830].
3. When a remote ITR receives a packet destined for a roaming-EID,
it encapsulates and replicates to each RLOC in the RLE thereby
delivering the packet to the locations the roaming-EID is about
to appear. There are some cases where packets will go to
locations where the roaming-EID has already been, but see
Section 4.2 for packet delivery optimizations.
4. When the ETR resident RSU receives an encapsulated packet, it
decapsulates the packet and then determines if the roaming-EID
had been previously discovered. If the EID has not been
discovered, the ETR drops the packet. Otherwise, the ETR
delivers the decapsulated packet on the port interface the
roaming-EID was discovered on.
4.1. RLE Encoding
The LCAF [RFC8060] Replication List Entry (RLE) will be used to
encode the Predictive RLOCs in an RLOC-record for Map-Registers, Map-
Reply, and Map-Notify messages [RFC6830].
Farinacci & Pillay-EsnauExpires November 29, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LISP Predictive RLOCs May 2018
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 13 | Rsvd2 | 4 + n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Rsvd3 | Rsvd4 | Level Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = x | RTR/ETR #1 ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Rsvd3 | Rsvd4 | Level Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = x | RTR/ETR #n ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
When the RLOC-record contains an RLE with RLOC entries all with the
same level value, it means the physical order listed is the
directional path of the RSUs. This will typically be the result of a
third-party doing the registration where it knows ahead of time the
RSU deployment.
When each RSU is registering with merge-semantics on their own, the
level number is used to place them in an ordered list. Since the
registrations come at different times and therefore arrive in
different order than the physical RSU path, the level number creates
the necessary sequencing. Each RSU needs to know its position in the
path relative to other RSUs. For example, in xTR-B, it would
register with level 1 since it is after xTR-A (and before xTR-C). So
if the registration order was xTR-B with level 1, xTR-C with level 2,
and xTR-A with level 0, the RLE list stored in the mapping system
would be (xTR-A, xTR-B, xTR-C). It is recommended that level numbers
be assigned in increments of 10 so latter insertion is possible.
The use of Geo-Prefixes and Geo-Points [I-D.farinacci-lisp-geo] can
be used to compare the physical presence of each RSU with respect to
each other, so they can choose level numbers to sequence themselves.
Also if the xTRs register with a Geo-Point in an RLOC-record, then
perhaps the Map-Server could sequence the RLE list.
4.2. Packet Delivery Optimizations
Since the remote ITR will replicate to all RLOCs in the RLE, a
situation is created where packets go to RLOCs that don't need to.
For instance, if the roaming-EID is along side of xTR-B and the RLE
is (xTR-A, xTR-B, xTR-C), there is no reason to replicate to xTR-A
since the roaming-EID has passed it and the the signal range is weak
or lost. However, replicating to xTR-B and xTR-C is important to
Farinacci & Pillay-EsnauExpires November 29, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LISP Predictive RLOCs May 2018
deliver packets to where the roaming-EID resides and where it is
about to go to.
A simple data-plane option, which converges fairly quickly is to have
the remote xTR, acting as an ETR, when packets are sent from the
roaming-EID, examine the source RLOC in the outer header of the
encapsulated packet. If the source RLOC is xTR-B, the remote xTR can
determine that the roaming-EID has moved past xTR-A and no longer
needs to encapsulate packets to xTR-A's RLOC.
In addition, the remote ITR can use RLOC-probing to determine if each
RLOC in the RLE is reachable. And if not reachable, exclude from the
list of RLOCs to replicate to.
This solution also handles the case where xTR-A and xTR-B may overlap
in radio signal range, but the signal is weak from the roaming-EID to
xTR-A but stronger to xTR-B. In this case, the roaming-EID selects
xTR-B to send packets that inform the remote xTR that return packets
should not be encapsulated to xTR-A.
There are also situations where the RSUs are in signal range of each
other in which case they could report reachability status of each
other. The use of the Locator-Status-Bits of the LISP encapsulation
header could be used to convey this information to the remote xTR.
This would only occur when the roaming-EID was discovered by both
xTR-A and xTR-B so it was possible for either xTR to reach the
roaming-EID. Either an IGP like routing protocol would be required
to allow each xTR to know the other could reach the roaming-EID or a
path trace tool (i.e. traceroute) could be originated by one xTR
targeted for the roaming-EID but MAC-forwarded through the other xTR.
These and other roaming-EID reachability mechanisms are work in
progress and for further study.
When a remote ITR is doing "Directional Mobility" and replicating to
the last RLOC in the RLE list, it has a decision to guess where the
roaming-EID will move to next. Conservatively, an ITR can replicate
to the entire set of RLOCs in the RLE list and wait to see if the
roaming-EID moves to one of the RLOCs in the RLE list.
Or more liberally, the remote ITR can assume the new roaming
direction. For example, with an RLE list of (xTR-A, xTR-B, xTR-C,
xTR-D) and the roaming-EID is at D, the remote ITR can replicate to
all of A, B, C and D to determine where the roaming-EID will move to
next. If the roaming-EID moves to C after it was at D, it is
possible that the EID is moving in the opposite direction from C to B
to A. This would be known as "Back-n-Forth Mobility". If an
implementation is configured to support this for a particluar EID,
the remote ITR could replicate in this sequence as the roaming-EID
Farinacci & Pillay-EsnauExpires November 29, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LISP Predictive RLOCs May 2018
moves from A to D and back to A: (A, B, C, D), (B, C, D), (C, D), (D,
C, B, A), (C, B, A), (B, A), and again (A, B, C, D).
The roaming-EID could be doing "Circular Mobility" where it moves
from A to D directionally, next from D-to-A, and then back to A to D
directionally again. This form of mobility is just as predicatable
as "Back-n-Forth Mobility" since a consistent pattern can be relied
on. Both of these mobility forms can be achieved with near-zero
packet loss.
On the other hand, the roaming-EID can be roaming arbitrarily using
"Random Mobility" where it could roam in the following combinations:
A-to-B, A-to-C, A-to-D, B-to-A, B-to-C, B-to-D, C-to-A, C-to-B, C-to-
D, D-to-A, D-to-B, or D-to-C. In this situation, when a return
packet arrives at the ITR, it could then just replicate to where the
roaming-EID is at rest and do so for a short period of time before it
replciates to the entire RLE list again. Using the wrong time period
could lead to packet loss. All these types of mobility can be
supported by the remote ITR in a local manner without consulting or
depending on any other LISP system. It is left for further study, if
any of the mobility types above should be encoded in the mapping
system.
4.3. Trading Off Replication Cost
If RLE lists are large, packet replication can occur to locations
well before the roaming-EID arrives. Making RLE lists small is
useful without sacrificing hand-off issues or incurring packet loss
to the application. By having overlapping RLEs in separate RLOC-
records we a simple mechanism to solve this problem. Here is an
example mapping entry to illustrate the point:
EID = , RLOC-records:
RLOC = (RLE: xTR-A, xTR-B)
RLOC = (RLE: xTR-B, xTR-C, xTR-D, xTR-E)
RLOC = (RLE: xTR-E, xTR-F)
When the remote ITR is encapsulating to xTR-B as a decision to use
the first RLOC-record, it can decide to move to use the second RLOC-
record because xTR-B is the last entry in the first RLOC-record and
the first entry in the second RLOC-record. When there are
overlapping RLEs, the remote ITR can decide when it is more efficient
to switch over. For example, when the roaming-EID is in range of
xTR-A, the remote ITR uses the first RLOC-record so the wasted
replication cost is to xTR-B only versus a worse cost when using the
second RLOC-record. But when the roaming-EID is in range of xTR-B,
then replicating to the other xTRs in the second RLOC-record may be
crucial if the roaming-EID has increased speed. And when the
Farinacci & Pillay-EsnauExpires November 29, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LISP Predictive RLOCs May 2018
roaming-EID may be at rest in a parked mode, then the remote ITR
encapsulates to only xTR-F using the third RLOC-record since the
roaming-EID has moved past xTR-E.
In addition, to eliminate unnecessary replication to xTRs further
down a directional path, GEO-prefixes [I-D.farinacci-lisp-geo] can be
used so only nearby xTRs that the roaming-EID is about to come in
contact with are the only ones to receive encapsulated packets.
Even when replication lists are not large, we can reduce the cost of
replication that the entire network bears by moving the replicator
away from the the source (i.e. the ITR) and closer to the RSUs (i.e.
the ETRs). See the use of RTRs for Replication Engineering
techniques in [RFC8378].
5. Directional Paths with Intersections
A roaming-EID could be registered to the mapping system with the
following nested RLE mapping:
EID = , RLOC-records:
RLOC = (RLE: xTR-A, xTR-B, xTR-C, (RLE: xTR-X, xTR-Y, xTR-Z),
(RLE: xTR-I, xTR-J, xTR-K), xTR-D, xTR-E)
The mapping entry above describes 3 directional paths where the
ordered list has encoded one-level of two nested RLEs to denote
intersections in a horizontal path. Which is drawn as:
| | xTR-K
| |
| |
| | xTR-J
| |
| |
Roaming | | xTR-I
EID ----> | |
--------------------------------------- ------------------------------
--------------------------------------- ------------------------------
xTR-A xTR-B xTR-C | | xTR-D xTR-E
| |
| | xTR-X
| |
| |
| | xTR-Y
| |
| |
| | xTR-Z
Farinacci & Pillay-EsnauExpires November 29, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LISP Predictive RLOCs May 2018
When the roaming-EID is on the horizontal path, the remote-ITRs
typically replicate to the rest the of the xTRs in the ordered list.
When a list has nested RLEs, the replication should occur to at least
the first RLOC in a nested RLE list. So if the remote-ITR is
replicating to xTR-C, xTR-D, and xTR-E, it should also replicate to
xTR-X and xTR-I anticipating a possible turn at the intersection.
But when the roaming-EID is known to be at xTR-D (a left or right
hand turn was not taken), replication should only occur to xTR-D and
xTR-E. Once either xTR-I or xTR-X is determined to be where the
roaming-EID resides, then the replication occurs on the respective
directional path only.
When nested RLEs are used it may be difficult to get merge-semantics
to work when each xTR registers itself. So it is suggested a third-
party registers nested RLEs. It is left to further study to
understand better how to automate this.
6. Multicast Considerations
In this design, the remote ITR is receiving a unicast packet from an
EID and replicating and encapsulating to each RLOC in an RLE list.
This form of replication is no different than a traditional multicast
replication function. So replicating multicast packets in the same
fashion is a fallout from this design.
If there are multiple roaming-EIDs joined to the same multicast group
but reside at different RSUs, a merge has to be done of any pruned
RLEs used for forwarding. So if roaming-EID-1 resides at xTR-A and
roaming-EID-2 resides at xTR-B and the RLE list is (xTR-A, xTR-B,
xTR-C), and they are joined to the same multicast group, then
replication occurs to all of xTR-A, xTR-B, and xTR-C. Even since
roaming-EID-2 is past xTR-A, packets need to be delivered to xTR-A
for roaming-EID-1. In addition, packets need to be delivered to
xTR-C because roaming-EID-1 and roaming-EID-2 will get to xTR-C (and
roaming-EID-1 may get there sooner if it is traveling faster than
roaming-EID-2).
When a roaming-EID is a multicast source, procedures from [RFC8378]
are used to deliver packets to multicast group members anywhere in
the network. The solution requires no signaling to the RSUs. When
RSUs receive multicast packets from a roaming-EID, they do a
(roaming-EID,G) mapping database lookup to find the replication list
of ETRs to encapsulate to.
Farinacci & Pillay-EsnauExpires November 29, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LISP Predictive RLOCs May 2018
7. Multiple Address-Family Considerations
Note that roaming-EIDs can be assigned IPv6 EID addresses while the
RSU xTRs could be using IPv4 RLOC addresses. Any combination of
address-families can be supported as well as for multicast packet
forwarding, where (S,G) are IPv6 addresses entries and replication is
done with IPv4 RLOCs in the outer header.
8. Scaling Considerations
One can imagine there will be a large number of roaming-EIDs. So
there is a strong desire to efficiently store state in the mapping
database and the in remote ITRs map-caches. It is likely, that
roaming-EIDs may share the same path and move at the same speed (EID
devices on a train) and therefore share the same Predictive RLOCs.
And since EIDs are not reassigned for mobility purposes or may be
temporal , they will not be topologically aggregatable, so they
cannot compress into a single EID-prefix mapping entry that share the
same RLOC-set.
By using a level of indirection with the mapping system this problem
can be solved. The following mapping entries could exist in the
mapping database:
EID = , RLOC-records:
RLOC = (afi=: "am-train-to-paris")
EID = , RLOC-records:
RLOC = (afi=: "am-train-to-paris")
EID = , RLOC-records:
RLOC = (afi=: "am-train-to-paris")
EID = "am-train-to-paris", RLOC-records:
RLOC = (afi=lcaf/RLE-type: xTR-A, xTR-B, xTR-C)
EID = "am-train-to-paris-passengers", RLOC-records:
RLOC = (afi=lcaf/afi-list-type: , , )
Each passenger that boards a train has their EID registered to point
to the name of the train "am-train-to-paris". And then the train
with EID "am-train-to-paris" stores the Predictive RLOC-set. When a
remote-ITR wants to encapsulate packets for an EID, it looks up the
EID in the mapping database gets the name "am-train-to-paris"
returned. Then the remote-ITR does another lookup for the name "am-
train-to-paris" to get the RLE list returned.
When new EIDs board the train, the RLE mapping entry does not need to
be modified. Only an EID-to-name mapping is registered for the
specific new EID. Optionally, another name "am-train-to-paris-
Farinacci & Pillay-EsnauExpires November 29, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LISP Predictive RLOCs May 2018
passengers" can be registered as an EID to allow mapping to all
specific EIDs which are on the train. This can be used for
inventory, billing, or security purposes.
This optimization comes at a cost of a 2-stage lookup. However, if
both sets of mapping entries are registered to the same Map-Server, a
combined RLOC-set could be returned. This idea is for further study.
9. Security Considerations
LISP has procedures for supporting both control-plane security
[I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] and data-plane security [RFC8061].
10. IANA Considerations
At this time there are no requests for IANA.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
.
[RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,
.
[RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical
Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060,
February 2017, .
[RFC8061] Farinacci, D. and B. Weis, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP) Data-Plane Confidentiality", RFC 8061,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8061, February 2017,
.
[RFC8378] Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "Signal-Free Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) Multicast", RFC 8378,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8378, May 2018,
.
Farinacci & Pillay-EsnauExpires November 29, 2018 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft LISP Predictive RLOCs May 2018
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.farinacci-lisp-geo]
Farinacci, D., "LISP Geo-Coordinate Use-Cases", draft-
farinacci-lisp-geo-05 (work in progress), April 2018.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity]
Farinacci, D., Pillay-Esnault, P., and W. Haddad, "LISP
EID Anonymity", draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-02 (work in
progress), April 2018.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility]
Portoles-Comeras, M., Ashtaputre, V., Moreno, V., Maino,
F., and D. Farinacci, "LISP L2/L3 EID Mobility Using a
Unified Control Plane", draft-ietf-lisp-eid-mobility-02
(work in progress), May 2018.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]
Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D.
Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-15
(work in progress), April 2018.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank the LISP WG for their review and
acceptance of this draft.
Appendix B. Document Change Log
[RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.]
B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-predictive-rlocs-02
o Posted May 2018.
o Update document timer and references.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-predictive-rlocs-01
o Posted November 2017.
o Update document timer and references.
o Reflect comments from Prague meeting presentation. There is no
need for "RLE Usage Types" as suggested. The ITR can treat what
RLOCs it replicates to as a local matter via implementation
configuration. RLE Directional is default. Circular rotation,
back-n-forth, and random selection of RLOCs is up to the ITR.
Farinacci & Pillay-EsnauExpires November 29, 2018 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft LISP Predictive RLOCs May 2018
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-predictive-rlocs-00
o Posted June 2017.
o Make this specification a working group document. It is a copy of
draft-farinacci-lisp-predictive-rlocs-02.
B.4. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-predictive-rlocs-02
o Posted May 2017 to update document timer.
B.5. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-predictive-rlocs-01
o Posted November 2016 to update document timer.
B.6. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-predictive-rlocs-00
o Initial post April 2016.
Authors' Addresses
Dino Farinacci
lispers.net
San Jose, CA
USA
Email: farinacci@gmail.com
Padma Pillay-Esnault
Huawei Technologies
San Clara, CA
USA
Email: padma@huawei.com
Farinacci & Pillay-EsnauExpires November 29, 2018 [Page 14]